Jump to content

Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

You nailed it Nether.  As long as individuals  think they are going to qualify for one of the top levels  then this plan is PERFECT and according to what God really wants.  The rest of the world just has to conform to be like them because that is how God really wants everyone to be like.

 

 

 

I don't thing everyone who is a member in tCoJCoLDS holds to this line of thinking. I don't. Who knows where I will qualify. I have thought long and hard about this concept for the last few years, and I trust that I will end up wherever I am going to be the happiest.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Trying to respond without asking a question. I did not know that the LDS church teaches that Christ was a product of a marital (covenantal) relationship between God the Father and Mary. That seems to me to be at odds with the NT concept of the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit (a separate Person from the Father), thus creating the miracle baby - the incarnate Christ - fully God and fully man. The word  episkiazo (overshadow) is only used five times in the whole NT. Its use implies a miraculous presence of the Holy Spirit such as at the transfiguration, Peter's healings, and the like. Very interesting. I did not know this.

I take full responsibility for calling the relationship between God and Mary a marital (covenant) relationship. Whatever we call it, Jesus was their legitimate Child, God's Only begotten Son. I do not see the Holy Ghost's role taking anything away from that covenant relationship any more than the Transfiguration did, or any more than the miracle of life (the spark of life, which for all I know is the Light of Christ) takes away from the holy bond of matrimony between husband and wife.

I see God and Mary in a covenant relationship because it brought forth the Christ into this world, in fulfillment of prophesies, covenants and promises established from before the foundation of the world, then revealed in this world through the prophets from  Adam to Enoch and Noah, and then to Abraham and his descendant prophets, on to Moses and the subsequent Old Testament prophets.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Navidad said:

You sure do ask a lot of questions! I am getting worried about you! Ha! 🙃

:D I think that without gender, we would not have a sexual orientation, and obviously sexual orientation does not determine gender. So, marriage is based on gender, not sexual orientation, and gender is the essential eternal characteristic of following the pattern set by God and Mary and which the arrival of Christ in this world points to as our example.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

think that without gender, we would not have a sexual orientation,

Humans are inventive, many are fixated on/oriented sexually to nongendered attributes (though it may be coupled with an orientation towards a particular sex) and even nonhuman versions.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s the only possible conclusion. In Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Christ himself makes it unmistakably clear that the only for a man way to obtain full exaltation in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom is for him to be married to a woman for time and all eternity prior his the resurrection. There is no way around this requirement if full exaltation is to be obtained. In fact, exaltation is synonymous with eternal marriage as they are one and the same. If Christ needed to submit to the ordinances of baptism and the gift if the Holy Ghost in order to be exalted, it’s sure as shooting that he also needed to be a recipient of the ordinance of eternal marriage as well. As our exemplar in all things pertaining to righteousness, Christ does not arrogantly violate his own firmly and irrevocably decreed laws.

And let's not forget that 19th century LDS leaders taught Jesus was a polygamist as well.  Oh the tangled web Mormonism results in. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Humans are inventive, many are fixated on/oriented sexually to nongendered attributes (though it may be coupled with an orientation towards a particular sex) and even nonhuman versions.

That would be non-sexual or a non-gendered orientation, which I do not believe drive gender, either. If it were possible for an individual to exist without any biological sex (XX, XY or some atypical sex chromosome combination), they could not possess sexual orientation, or act upon it, by definition.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That would be non-sexual or a non-gendered orientation, which I do not believe drive gender, either.

By sexual orientation do you mean the object of their desire has a sex that they are attracted to or do you mean the orientation of their sexual feelings?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And let's not forget that 19th century LDS leaders taught Jesus was a polygamist as well.  Oh the tangled web Mormonism results in. 

It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if the Lord is a polygamist. After all, in D&C section 132 the Savior himself testifies that it’s possible to practice plural marriage in righteousness and thereafter inherit the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. If valiant mortals like Abraham and Jacob could practice plural marriage in righteousness, and still be exalted, there would no problem for the perfect God of Holiness to do the same.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
(D&C 132)

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Calm said:

By sexual orientation do you mean the object of their desire has a sex that they are attracted to or do you mean the orientation of their sexual feelings?

I mean both, and these are not requisite for gender to serve as “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” That is why marriage is defined in the Church as being between a man and a woman, and even as “same sex” civilly and not between heterosexuals, homosexuals, and an indeterminately growing number of other sexuality-descriptive terms (21 others, last I checked), though I think using sexuality-descriptive terms will gain appeal. Gender on the other hand, is requisite for sexual orientation since there is no one without biological sex (by that I mean having at least one sex chromosome, granted a low threshold) of some kind at birth. I don’t think a person without any sex chromosomes exists.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Teancum said:

And let's not forget that 19th century LDS leaders taught Jesus was a polygamist as well.  Oh the tangled web Mormonism results in. 

He was.
Next.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I mean both, and these are not requisite for gender to serve as “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” That is why marriage is defined in the Church as being between a man and a woman, and even as “same sex” civilly and not between heterosexuals, homosexuals, and an indeterminately growing number of other sexuality-descriptive terms (21 others, last I checked), though I think using sexuality-descriptive terms will gain appeal. Gender on the other hand, is requisite for sexual orientation since there is no one without biological sex (by that I mean having at least one sex chromosome, granted a low threshold) of some kind at birth. I don’t think a person without any sex chromosomes exists.

Sorry.  This is not computing for me today.  I’d like to explore the assumptions ,but don’t have a good enough handle on it to try.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if the Lord is a polygamist. After all, in D&C section 132 the Savior himself testifies that it’s possible to practice plural marriage in righteousness and thereafter inherit the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. If valiant mortals like Abraham and Jacob could practice plural marriage in righteousness, and still be exalted, there would no problem for the perfect God of Holiness to do the same.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
(D&C 132)

 

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. (D&C 132)

How many laws are being referred to here?
If it's one law...

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. (D&C 132)

How many laws are being referred to here?
If it's one law...

 

The context makes it clear that each mention of the word law in the above passages is referring  to the law that pertains to the  “continuation of the seeds forever,” which law is fulfilled by obeying the law of new and everlasting covenant  of eternal marriage.

Link to comment

So I am assuming for you scriptural literalists that you believe once you are married in the temple and stay married, you can commit any sin but murder and your guaranteed the celestial kingdom (D&C 132:19).  It also seems based on the certainty expressed above that God can't reveal any more on the subject of marriage because the cannon of scripture is sealed and you believe that prophets, seers and revelators have declared the revelation on marriage is sealed and final.   Is that your feeling on the subject?  Do you believe that is the Church's official position?

 

If so then it is clear to see why folks leave the Church.  They see too much evidence that the subject has not been sealed by God and are looking for more revelation on the subject.  When they express those feelings, they are solidly denounced as heretics by many members and church leaders.  It's really the basic issue for most of the confusion around religion.  Those in control of each religious institution want to limit change and they cast out those who advocate for change.  Of course the only problem with this is that God has a history of sending more revelation that expands the understanding of man on the eternal principles, in other words, change.   Is marriage the eternal principle or is love the eternal principle.  I put my money on love.  Anything that creates or increases love of any kind is from God.  Men and women weren't created to satisfy the demands of marriage.  Marriage is an eternal part of that which creates eternal love between two people.  The evidence that gay marriage creates as much love as straight marriage is undeniable.  Gay couples even raise kids who are happy, well adjusted and loved.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

So I am assuming for you scriptural literalists that you believe once you are married in the temple and stay married, you can commit any sin but murder and your guaranteed the celestial kingdom (D&C 132:19).  It also seems based on the certainty expressed above that God can't reveal any more on the subject of marriage because the cannon of scripture is sealed and you believe that prophets, seers and revelators have declared the revelation on marriage is sealed and final.   Is that your feeling on the subject?  Do you believe that is the Church's official position?

I don't believe the sealing in D&C 132:19 is referring to the marriage sealing but to one that comes after.

But yes I believe that the doctrines and ordinances pertaining to marriage have been fully restored.  There is no additional knowledge to be given on SSM.  It's not an eternal principle in any way, of that I am convinced.

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Is marriage the eternal principle or is love the eternal principle.  I put my money on love.  Anything that creates or increases love of any kind is from God.  Men and women weren't created to satisfy the demands of marriage.  Marriage is an eternal part of that which creates eternal love between two people.

I disagree with this.  Not all love is of God.  Love of money is the root of all evil for instance.   Christ said that "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Loving something doesn't necessarily make it right.

Link to comment
On 4/13/2022 at 1:26 AM, Calm said:

Humans are inventive, many are fixated on/oriented sexually to nongendered attributes (though it may be coupled with an orientation towards a particular sex) and even nonhuman versions.

This is a difficult concept to grasp for people who exist in this historical moment and within dominant Western culture. A critical understanding of history and anthropology can help pop this discursive bubble. The reality, of course, is that gender and sexuality have been constructed in a bewildering number of radically different ways across time and space (both geography and culture). There is no inherent requirement that attraction be gendered or even sexual, and in fact, it often has not been, and in many places still isn't.

People who have been socialised into framing their own desires as both 'inherently' sexual and gendered often cannot see any other option and immediately assume that what you and I are discussing is some kind of wordplay beneath which there is still a universal, timeless human experience that exactly matches their own. This is simply not the case, and as I have often stated, the historical, anthropological, and linguistic evidence unitedly eliminate this position as even tenable.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

So I am assuming for you scriptural literalists that you believe once you are married in the temple and stay married, you can commit any sin but murder and your guaranteed the celestial kingdom (D&C 132:19).  It also seems based on the certainty expressed above that God can't reveal any more on the subject of marriage because the cannon of scripture is sealed and you believe that prophets, seers and revelators have declared the revelation on marriage is sealed and final.   Is that your feeling on the subject?  Do you believe that is the Church's official position?

 

If so then it is clear to see why folks leave the Church.  They see too much evidence that the subject has not been sealed by God and are looking for more revelation on the subject.  When they express those feelings, they are solidly denounced as heretics by many members and church leaders.  It's really the basic issue for most of the confusion around religion.  Those in control of each religious institution want to limit change and they cast out those who advocate for change.  Of course the only problem with this is that God has a history of sending more revelation that expands the understanding of man on the eternal principles, in other words, change.   Is marriage the eternal principle or is love the eternal principle.  I put my money on love.  Anything that creates or increases love of any kind is from God.  Men and women weren't created to satisfy the demands of marriage.  Marriage is an eternal part of that which creates eternal love between two people.  The evidence that gay marriage creates as much love as straight marriage is undeniable.  Gay couples even raise kids who are happy, well adjusted and loved.

For us quoting scriptures, this is a website that has to do with the church of Jesus Christ. We are trying the best we can to understand the world we live in through the lens of a people of God. We don’t always get it right, but if we don’t try to understand that which has been revealed, well then we are just following the precepts of men. However, it is interesting that there are no instances of the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Scribes citing scripture in the New Testament (with one exception to referencing the killing of children at Jesus birth and a few references to the law of Moses). It is always Jesus and his apostles that are quoting scripture.

It is also hard to talk about future revelation when we do not have it yet. All we have is current and past revelation. Thinking of future revelation is just speculation on our part. We can hope that it will align with what we want, but it may not.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that a gay couple can’t love each other as much as a straight couple, nor that they cannot love adopted children as much, nor raise them with good statutes. But at this moment they cannot even fulfill the commandment to replenish the earth. It is a physical impossibility. Yes they can adopt and raise children, but it always takes xy and xx to bring a child into this mortal probation. There is no other way. We can speculate about a future revelation that changes this, but right now we don’t have it.

By the way, I read the other thread you started and love how you are going out of your way to help people with SS attraction find a place. I too am from Oregon, and if we ever meet in person, I hope to do so with godly love.

Edited by filovirus
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Loving something doesn't necessarily make it right.

Or someone.

I lived for nearly a year in a branch that had an amazing Relief Society president. I very rarely notice women in any kind of physical way, but surprisingly I noticed this one. And she was even more beautiful on the inside. She was an adult convert who had served a mission in America, and her service in the branch brought honour to her calling and blessed not just the other sisters but all of us.

One week, her usual lift was sick or away, so she asked me if I could pick her up for church. I said sure, and we enjoyed each other's company tremendously. After that, I became her usual lift. We would talk the entire drive to the chapel, and then we would not only talk the entire drive home, but she would stay in the car as we sat parked at the head of her drive just so we could continue the conversation. It was clear that neither of us wanted our time together to end, and each week it got harder and harder to say good-bye.

No matter what topic one of us brought up, the other one would immediately have complementary and interesting things to say. It seemed that we saw the world (including the Church) in the exact same way. Again and again, we would finish each other's sentences! She made me feel more 'complete' than I had ever felt before or have ever felt since.  I knew that I could be happy for the rest of my life just to be in her presence and hear her voice.

One Saturday afternoon, we bumped into each other at the shops and spent literally three hours standing in the washing powder aisle just talking and enjoying each other's company. It's still one of my happiest memories, one filled with mutual joy, big smiles, warmth, and much laughter.

I again picked her up for church the next morning, but on the way home afterwards, I suggested that she find another lift going forward. Intuitively understanding why without asking, she thanked me and agreed. And when I was invited to renew my work contract, I declined and moved away.

I still love this woman -- deeply -- but I love God more, as does she. And in fact, I am willing to assert that loving someone in accordance with God's laws is the highest, holiest form of love.

Our determination to honour our covenants, whilst painful, has significantly blessed my life, and I am certain that it also blessed this wonderful woman, her unaware husband, and the rest of her family.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

So I am assuming for you scriptural literalists that you believe once you are married in the temple and stay married, you can commit any sin but murder and your guaranteed the celestial kingdom (D&C 132:19).  It also seems based on the certainty expressed above that God can't reveal any more on the subject of marriage because the cannon of scripture is sealed and you believe that prophets, seers and revelators have declared the revelation on marriage is sealed and final.   Is that your feeling on the subject?  Do you believe that is the Church's official position?

 

If so then it is clear to see why folks leave the Church.  They see too much evidence that the subject has not been sealed by God and are looking for more revelation on the subject.  When they express those feelings, they are solidly denounced as heretics by many members and church leaders.  It's really the basic issue for most of the confusion around religion.  Those in control of each religious institution want to limit change and they cast out those who advocate for change.  Of course the only problem with this is that God has a history of sending more revelation that expands the understanding of man on the eternal principles, in other words, change.   Is marriage the eternal principle or is love the eternal principle.  I put my money on love.  Anything that creates or increases love of any kind is from God.  Men and women weren't created to satisfy the demands of marriage.  Marriage is an eternal part of that which creates eternal love between two people.  The evidence that gay marriage creates as much love as straight marriage is undeniable.  Gay couples even raise kids who are happy, well adjusted and loved.

You’ve misconstrue verse 26 by taking it out of context, with no attempt reconcile what’s said therein with what’s spoken in the verses 25 and 27.

25 Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

You fail to realize that the individuals spoken of in verse 26 have received Christ and continue to abide in his law. But abiding in God’s law after having made one’s calling and election sure doesn’t mean such individuals are free from imperfection and sin, and no longer In need of living the gospel of repentance until the end of the mortal probation.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

And again, although those spoken of in verse 26 have had their temple marriage sealed for time and all eternity by the Holy Spirit of promise, that doesn’t mean they are perfect and will not continue to manifest their imperfect and continue to commit sins that will need to be repented of and then atoned for by the blood of Christ. It’s also critically important to understand that the expression, “and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood” has reference to the “sins unto death,” spoken of by the Apostle Paul, that permanently sever one’s salvative relationship with Christ. The “sins unto life,” also spoken of by Paul, will not destroy one’s salvative relationship with Christ as long as the transgressor repents and receives divine forgiveness.
 
27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

Verse 27 clearly declares it’s the kinds of sins that permanently destroy one’s relationship with Christ’s redemptive Fatherhood (sins unto death) that will cancel out a calling and election that was once was made sure. The bottom line? Even those who have had their callings and elections made sure are imperfect and will need to repent of their sins and imperfections, with broken hearts and contrite spirits, right up to the moment that they bow before the throne of God the Father on the day of the final judgement. 

 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

o I am assuming for you scriptural literalists that you believe once you are married in the temple and stay married, you can commit any sin but murder and your guaranteed the celestial kingdom (D&C 132:19).

The New and Everlasting covenant is the Gospel, so abiding in “my covenant” could very well mean living the gospel, not just being sealed in the temple and never getting divorced..

Quote

and if ye abide in my covenant,

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1996/10/covenant-marriage?lang=eng

But even if covenant of marriage, we don’t teach that all that particular covenant consists of is they are a man and woman who were legally married (or married civilly and then sealed) in the temple and the sealing is still on record.  It is about becoming one, something not possible without obedience to all the commandments of God including repentance when needed.  In essence the covenant of marriage is the covenant of the gospel as lived by two becoming one.

Quote

Marriage is by nature a covenant, not just a private contract one may cancel at will. Jesus taught about contractual attitudes when he described the “hireling,” who performs his conditional promise of care only when he receives something in return. When the hireling “seeth the wolf coming,” he “leaveth the sheep, and fleeth … because he … careth not for the sheep.” By contrast, the Savior said, “I am the good shepherd, … and I lay down my life for the sheep.”2 Many people today marry as hirelings. And when the wolf comes, they flee. This idea is wrong. It curses the earth, turning parents’ hearts away from their children and from each other.3

Before their marriage, Tom and Tracy received an eternal perspective on covenants and wolves. They learned through the story of Adam and Eve about life’s purpose and how to return to God’s presence through obedience and the Atonement. Christ’s life is the story of giving the Atonement. The life of Adam and Eve is the story of receiving the Atonement, which empowered them to overcome their separation from God and all opposition until they were eternally “at one,” with the Lord, and with each other.

Quote

Covenant marriage requires a total leap of faith: they must keep their covenants without knowing what risks that may require of them. They must surrender unconditionally, obeying God and sacrificing for each other. Then they will discover what Alma called “incomprehensible joy.”7

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Or someone.

I lived for nearly a year in a branch that had an amazing Relief Society president. I very rarely notice women in any kind of physical way, but surprisingly I noticed this one. And she was even more beautiful on the inside. She was an adult convert who had served a mission in America, and her service in the branch brought honour to her calling and blessed not just the other sisters but all of us.

One week, her usual lift was sick or away, so she asked me if I could pick her up for church. I said sure, and we enjoyed each other's company tremendously. After that, I became her usual lift. We would talk the entire drive to the chapel, and then we would not only talk the entire drive home, but she would stay in the car as we sat parked at the head of her drive just so we could continue the conversation. It was clear that neither of us wanted our time together to end, and each week it got harder and harder to say good-bye.

No matter what topic one of us brought up, the other one would immediately have complementary and interesting things to say. It seemed that we saw the world (including the Church) in the exact same way. Again and again, we would finish each other's sentences! She made me feel more 'complete' than I had ever felt before or have ever felt since.  I knew that I could be happy for the rest of my life just to be in her presence and hear her voice.

One Saturday afternoon, we bumped into each other at the shops and spent literally three hours standing in the washing powder aisle just talking and enjoying each other's company. It's still one of my happiest memories, one filled with mutual joy, big smiles, warmth, and much laughter.

I again picked her up for church the next morning, but on the way home afterwards, I suggested that she find another lift going forward. Intuitively understanding why without asking, she thanked me and agreed. And when I was invited to renew my work contract, I declined and moved away.

I still love this woman -- deeply -- but I love God more, as does she. And in fact, I am willing to assert that loving someone in accordance with God's laws is the highest, holiest form of love.

Our determination to honour our covenants, whilst painful, has significantly blessed my life, and I am certain that it also blessed this wonderful woman, her unaware husband, and the rest of her family.

That's heartbreaking to find your soul mate and not be able to be with them.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, filovirus said:

I don't thing everyone who is a member in tCoJCoLDS holds to this line of thinking. I don't. Who knows where I will qualify. I have thought long and hard about this concept for the last few years, and I trust that I will end up wherever I am going to be the happiest.

I agree and often feel the same. The challenge for the church, though, is that we very much want everyone to aim for sealing in the temple. If we decide that some group of members (in this case LGBT) should aim lower and therefore don’t need the temple, we inevitably open the door to lots more members who are not LGBT doing the same. 


It’s like the current situation with young men serving missions. We teach that YM have a duty to serve because they are ordained to the priesthood, and that YW have option to serve but shouldn’t feel any pressure, but in practice every ward I’ve been in ends up treating all youth the same.  We bend towards equality and are lousy at setting different bars for our sons than our daughters. So by setting a lower expectation for one group we inevitably do the same for the other. That’s one reason mission numbers are down IMO. 
 

Getting back to my original comment in this thread, I’m very encouraged if President Oak’s plan is to find ways to include LGBT members better in our church community. But I strongly doubt we can set a lower bar for them without seeing many other members decide the lower bar is fine for them too. There’s a high risk in teaching that any group is not ‘exaltation material.’  

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Sorry.  This is not computing for me today.  I’d like to explore the assumptions ,but don’t have a good enough handle on it to try.

No problem, it can be very confusing and these are my opinions anyway.

I am using a biological model. Liberally speaking, any combination of X and/or Y chromosomes, or only one sex chromosome, by definition gives a person a sex, what we consider typical (i.e., male or female) or not (sex chromosome aneuploidy, such as Klinefelter syndrome, polysomy X and/or Y, Turner's syndrome, polysomy X, and so forth). An absence of any sex chromosomes is lethal; the conception would not remain viable. This is why, from a biological perspective, a person's gender must be set before they can live at all, to possess any sexual orientation at all.

Thus gender is an essential characteristic for the marriage covenant, not sexual orientation. Even the term, "same-sex marriage" acknowledges that, and the term "traditional marriage" assumed that. The sexual orientation of the couple is assumed, but not essential, in both cases. On the other hand, the term "gay marriage" requires the couple to be gay, and only assumes the couple is of the same sex.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...